Re: The forgotten verses

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:15:15 EDT

  • Next message: Sondra Brasile: "RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don"

    Howard,

    I had hoped you would consider it important that we factored in to our
    deliberations vis-a-vis how things began what the Scriptures have to say
    about the nature of those who so deliberate.

    Regarding the numbers: I see them as fulfilling a complementary role in
    confirming the text to be divinely-inspired - and that, surely, can be no
    bad thing. Indeed, I believe the numbers serve to enhance the ability of the
    text to stimulate awe and worship.

    Vernon

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
    To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "D. F. Siemens, Jr."
    <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:41 PM
    Subject: Re: The forgotten verses

    > Vernon,
    >
    > Having watched discussions of this sort many times on this list, here's a
    > simple observation: With all of this obsession with numerology and with
    > all of this zeal for statistical cherry picking, the concern to find
    wisdom
    > for living a good life enriched with a keen awareness of the Sacred seems
    to
    > have faded into the background. What a sad irony if the text has become
    more
    > important for its ability to generate numbers than for its ability to
    > stimulate awe or worship.
    >
    > Howard Van Till
    >
    >
    >
    > ----------
    > >From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
    > >To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
    > >Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    > >Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
    > >Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2003, 7:13 PM
    > >
    >
    > > Dave,
    > >
    > > I'm currently digesting your response to my recent posting. For now, let
    me
    > > just challenge your closing words, "I simply go by the text." -
    referring to
    > > your belief that the Hebrews of Solomon's day believed pi to be 3 - a
    > > deduction based upon the data provided by II Chronicles 4:2. But you
    surely
    > > realise there is ambiguity here. All real cylinders have an inner
    diameter
    > > (d, say) and an outer diameter (D, say); an inner circumference (c, say)
    and
    > > an outer circumference (C, say). Does "...ten cubits from brim to
    brim..."
    > > represent d or D? Does "...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round
    > > about." represent c or C?
    > >
    > > You must therefore agree that the data here provided is insufficient to
    > > support your claim. It needs the additional information given in verse 5
    of
    > > the same chapter to bring the solution a little closer. Here we are told
    > > "And the thickness of it (the cylinder wall) was an handbreadth..." (t,
    > > say). A 'handbreadth' is defined as a measure of four fingers, equal to
    > > about four inches, and a 'cubit' as the distance from elbow to to the
    tip of
    > > the longest finger of a man - about 18 inches.
    > >
    > > Clearly, pi may be determined as either of the ratios c/d or C/D, but
    not as
    > > c/D or C/d. Thus, only by reading the 30 cubits as the _inner_
    circumference
    > > (c), and the 10 cubits as the outer diameter (D) do we make sense of the
    > > data, thus:
    > >
    > > d = D - 2xt = 10x18 - 2x4 = 180 - 8 = 172 inches
    > > c = 30x18 = 540 inches
    > > pi = 540/172 = 3.14 (which we recognise as a commonly used
    approximation
    > > for pi).
    > >
    > > There can be little doubt that the intrinsic ambiguities associated with
    > > IIChr.2:4 are here satisfactorily resolved, and why anyone should, (a)
    have
    > > believed the Hebrews incapable of detecting a 4.5% error in the value of
    pi
    > > (by assuming it to be 3 rather than its true value), and (b) have
    assumed
    > > that Egyptian knowledge of this constant would have stopped short of its
    > > border with Israel, is really beyond understanding - unless, of course,
    the
    > > principal motive was the undermining of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures.
    > >
    > > Vernon
    > > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
    > > To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
    > > Cc: <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>; <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>;
    > > <asa@lists.calvin.edu>; <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
    > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 5:41 AM
    > > Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:10:16 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins"
    > >> <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
    > >> > Dave,
    > >> >
    > >> > You appear to overlook the principal reason for my last writing to
    > >> > Michael.
    > >> > It was to point to the fundamental matter of man's essential nature
    > >> > as it is
    > >> > presented in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures; and, arising from
    > >> > that,
    > >> > whether it is reasonable to believe that his (man's) overturning of
    > >> > God's
    > >> > account of how things actually began can possibly carry any
    > >> > conviction. I
    > >> > suggest that until that matter is understood, and settled, no real
    > >> > meaning
    > >> > can be attached to the detailed evidence driving the current debate.
    > >> > An
    > >> > associated consideration, of course, is man's tendency to discount
    > >> > the
    > >> > supernatural; to look only to 'natural' explanations.
    > >> >
    > >> Correction: I did not overlook your "principal reason," I ignored it as
    > >> irrelevant and irrational. I once believed much as you do, until the
    Lord
    > >> delivered me from such lies about what the scriptures and his creation
    > >> teach. I discovered that geological dating might be off by a factor of
    no
    > >> more than two, not by 6 orders of magnitude. I recognize that you think
    > >> that this makes me discount the supernatural. I do not, for I rest in
    the
    > >> constant care and concern of my Lord.
    > >>
    > >> > Dave, perhaps you would like to address my concerns with respect to
    > >> > these
    > >> > matters.
    > >> >
    > >> > Let me now briefly turn to what you have chosen to call
    > >> > 'numerological
    > >> > drivel'. You are hardly suggesting that the numbers I find in the
    > >> > Scriptures - express and implied - are merely figments of my
    > >> > imagination.
    > >> > Have you, therefore, no desire to inquire why they are there? A
    > >> > careful
    > >> > examination of the facts reveals they are undoubtedly of
    > >> > supernatural
    > >> > origin - and one thus infers they are intended to accomplish some
    > >> > serious
    > >> > purpose. I claim no personal advantage for seeing a clear message in
    > >> > the
    > >> > numbers - but I do consider it strangely ostrich-like for any
    > >> > numerate
    > >> > intellectual Christian to brush these aside as completely
    > >> > inconsequential.
    > >> > Are you really presuming to deny our Creator the right to use
    > >> > whatever means
    > >> > He considers appropriate to safeguard His Word?
    > >> >
    > >> Your question on this matter assumes that the current state of the
    > >> scriptural text is inerrantly inspired and preserved in its present
    > >> state. I know enough about the text to recognize this assumption to be
    > >> false, for there is not a single version of most passages. So the basis
    > >> of your analysis is flawed. Further, I recall one place where you
    changed
    > >> the word order of the text in order to make things come out right.
    > >> Further, if you were discovering the handiwork of deity, then the
    numbers
    > >> would show up exactly in every word, clause, sentence, paragraph and
    > >> book. There would be no exceptions.
    > >>
    > >> Additionally, there is no benefit to a walk with God to the stuff you
    dig
    > >> out. If anything, it advances pride, which is hardly a virtue. When I
    > >> referred to "numerological drivel" it was to avoid using an earthier
    > >> term.
    > >>
    > >> > By the way, your belief that the engineers of Solomon's day believed
    > >> > pi to
    > >> > equal 3 is utter nonsense - if only on the basis that the pyramid
    > >> > builders
    > >> > were near neighbours - and the early Hebrews had spent a long time
    > >> > in
    > >> > Egypt.. However, a closer reading of II Chronicles 4:2, 5 and a
    > >> > more
    > >> > sympathetic approach to the data adequately proves the point.
    > >> >
    > >> > Vernon
    > >> > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
    > >> >
    > >> I simply go by the text.
    > >> Dave
    > >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:15:45 EDT